Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Tue, 17 June 2008 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9913A6B6B; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4FF3A6B6B; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fjS7+v3rsVkp; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9644E3A6A53; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s73602 (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1K8gpE3Xgl-00041m; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:26:43 -0400
Message-ID: <008501c8d0b0$3bf76670$ad600240@china.huawei.com>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <6B100D42B8C49F65FCBBED8E@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net><48535EAD.6000704@qualcomm.com> <20080617130256.GM32214@nsn.com> <386A1E4A-8164-408F-B7D3-BF968085AC2D@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:27:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19Y+3hENzOeUMcRLkff5/FuAvL6A3DgwAHAdVO t1RQnC+1p/bDajqO7+CF4UvZXLUIwTTfSX7n2h0bgJJsy9nK4T l8AUe+B8uHZh6pLnSGjUuwxm4B8PYLGrvqJkie1SKo=
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

For what it's worth, I thought I remembered which document David was talking 
about in his second case, and confirmed that it was 
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt.

There are narrative minutes from the telechat where David's DISCUSS position 
was discussed, at 
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Narrative/iesg-narrative-minutes-02-16-2006.html, 
in case anyone wants to see what an IESG chat about ABSTAIN and override 
voting might look like...

See "2.1.2 Returning Item".

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>;

> On Jun 17, 2008, at 6:02 AM, David Kessens wrote:
>> If my memory serves me correctly, we didn't have to do a formal
>> override vote in both cases as the request of an override vote was
>> enough to get the first case moving, while in the second case I
>> decided that an informal strawpoll was enough to decide that I
>> didn't have enough support for my opinion so I switched to an ABSTAIN.
>
> In my experience, which is now dated, that has been the norm. During
> my tenure, we had at least two cases where an AD said "'discuss' and
> I'm not going to remove it no matter what". The first resulted in the
> crafting of the override procedure; the second had us drawing that
> sword. But the threat of its use resulted in the desired behavior, so
> it was never actually used. There was a third that one could mention;
> it resulted in the working group rewriting the document completely.
> The rewrite was a dramatic improvement; the "discuss" was removed as
> a result. 


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf